Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

PARILLA, MAY ANN C.

LLB 2-1

ELECTION LAW
MONDAYS/CW8

G.R. No. 201112


June 13, 2012
FERNANDO CAPALLA VS. COMELEC

Facts:
Capalla contended that the option to purchase (OTP) provided for the Automated
Election System (AES) contract had already lapsed; the subsequent changes made by
COMELEC and Smartmatic-TIM in the contract without conducting competitive public
bidding contravene the provisions of RA 9184; and, purchase made by COMELEC likewise
violated the standards laid down in RA 9369. On the other hand, CEMELEC argued on the
validity of the subject transaction based on the grounds that there is no prohibition either
in the contract or provision of law to extend the option period; that the OTP is not an
independent contract in itself, but is a provision contained in the valid and existing AES
contract that already satisfied the public bidding requirements of RA 9184; and that
exercising the option was the most advantageous option of the COMELEC. The contract
was one of lease of the AES with OTP of the goods listed in the contract. COMELEC was
given an option to exercise its right to purchase, which was extended several times.
COMELEC partially accepted its OTP and subsequently issued a Resolution resolving to
accept the Smartmatic-TIMs offer to extend the period to exercise the OTP. Later
COMELEC resolved to approve the Deed of Sale and to purchase the PCOS machines to
be used in the upcoming May 2013 elections. With the authority vested to the Chairman
of the Commission, the Deed of Sale was forthwith executed.

Issue:
Whether or not there is a valid contract entered by COMELEC and Smartmatic-TIM.

Held:
Yes. A reading of the other provisions of the AES contract would show that the parties are
given the right to amend the contract which may include the period within which to
exercise the option. Even considering that the AES contract is not an ordinary contract as
it involves procurement by a government agency, the rights and obligations of the
parties are governed by the Civil Code and RA 9184. A winning bidder is not precluded
from modifying or amending certain provisions of the contract bidded upon. However,
such changes must not constitute substantial or material amendments that would alter
the basic parameters of the contract and would constitute a denial to the other bidders
of the opportunity to bid on the same terms. In the case at bar, neither of these was

PARILLA, MAY ANN C.


LLB 2-1

ELECTION LAW
MONDAYS/CW8

proven. There was no was additional right granted to Smartmatic-TIM after the bidding
that was not previously available to the other bidders. The amendments made in the AES
contract were not substantial. Bids were, therefore, accepted provided that they did not
exceed said amount. The competitive public bidding conducted for the AES contract was
sufficient. A new public bidding would be a superfluity. Moreover, the amendment of the
AES contract is more advantageous to the COMELEC because the public rentals paid for
the lease of goods and purchase of services was considered part of the purchase price.
For the COMELEC to own the subject goods, it was required to pay only
P2,130,635,048.15. If the COMELEC did not exercise the option, the rentals already paid
would just be one of the government expenses for the past election and would be of no
use to future elections.